Political Science at Huntingdon College
Huntingdon College | Political Science | Books | Courses | Dates | Office Hours | Required | What's New?

Grading rubric for PSC research projects at 200 level

Paper (CROW) | Briefings (CASOQ)

Revised 11/22/17 with separate 300 level rubric, by Dr. Jeremy Lewis, Wide window recommended for table. 
Content and Research are more heavily weighted than Organization and Writing.
Capstone 
Papers
Content Research Organization Writing
A- to A=
Grades
thoughtful, conceptual, begins political science discipline:
  • clearly analytical comparisons
  • contrasting views and theories
  • arguments supported by data or quotations
  • analysis transcends an historical narrative

  •  
    Uses a couple of political science sources: 
  • books (University Press)
  • books (trade press)
  • academic anthologies
  • academic journal articles
  • government documents 
  • online sources are of above types

  • (Any journalism or interest group reports are balanced, and of high quality.)
    Reasonably organized and punctual:
  • designed in advance
  • paper delivered punctually
  • introduction lays out issues and research design.
  • paragraphs for each thought.
  • logical order of paragraphs.
  • APSA citations throughout text (Smith, 1999, 351).
  • citations at point of contact -- not just end of paragraphs.
  • reference list in APSA style
  • Findings answer research questions.
  • tables and quotes integrated
  • Argument comes through clearly:
  • language is conceptual
  • Logical grammar, conjunctions used
  • no distractions in spelling, malapropisms
  • formatted to instructions in Required page (font size, spacing, margins, etc)
  • no personal opinion phrases
  • no disconnected opinions
  • no run-on sentences
  • no waffle, padding
  • B- to B+
    Grades
    Some analysis, if not explicitly in political science:
  • some consideration of alternative views
  • presents several viewpoints 
  • competent historical narrative
  • arguments supported, mostly
  • transcends journalism or opinions
  • yet does not deeply consider material
  • Uses a political science source: 
  • books (University Press)
  • academic anthologies
  • academic journal articles, 
  • government documents. 

  • limited use of: 
  • journalism or interest group reports 
  • lighter online sources
  • yet does not dig into material
  • Fairly organized and punctual:
  • Introduction lays some issues and plan.
  • Paragraphs for most thoughts.
  • fairly logical order of paragraphs.
  • APSA citations in most paragraphs (Smith, 1999, 351).
  • Reference list in near-APSA style
  • Findings included
  • meets minimum length
  • tables or quotes not integrated
  • partial advance draft 
  • paper delivered slightly late
  • Some logic of argument:
  • language functional, some clichés
  • few errors of grammar
  • few distractions of spelling, malapropisms
  • mostly formatted to instructions in Required page (font size, spacing, margins, etc)
  • few personal opinion phrases
  • few disconnected opinions
  • few run-on sentences
  • limited waffle, padding
  • C- to C+
    Grades
    Little or no analysis:
  • Mostly superficial, journalistic or 'doorstep' opinions, without academic data or support
  • argument does not really flow throughout paper
  • trite comments
  • Findings reject evidence, maintain prejudice
  • No: 
  • academic political science articles 
  • academic books
  • trade press books
  • government documents

  • Excess reliance on:
  • journalism 
  • activist group reports
  • encyclopedias
  • light, web sources
  • Disorganized or tardy:
  • Introduction trite or superficial
  • Paragraphs disorganized.
  • no logical flow of paragraphs.
  • APSA citations missing (Smith, 1999, 351).
  • Reference list not in APSA style
  • Conclusions trite or missing
  • paper short of required
  • no advance draft delivered
  • paper missing chunks of material
  • quotations excessive or missing
  • tables excessive or missing
  • no advance draft
  • or, paper delivered late
  • Logic of argument is not clear:
  • many errors of grammar
  • distractions of spelling, malapropisms
  • not formatted to instructions in Required page (font size, spacing, margins, etc)
  • personal opinion phrases
  • disconnected opinions
  • run-on sentences
  • much waffle, padding
  • F to D+
    Grades
  • Merely superficial, journalistic or doorstep opinions
  • short paper
  • nothing really original found
  • trite comments
  • rejecting evidence, maintains prejudice
  • No real political science materials.
  • Plagiarized sources.
  • Or, invalidated by plagiarism
  • Introduction trite or superficial
  • Paragraphs messy
  • no logic
  • citations missing 
  • Reference list missing
  • Conclusions trite or missing
  • tables or quotes missing
  • only part of paper delivered
  • Or, invalidated by plagiarism
  • argument is not clear or consistent
  • many errors of grammar
  • distractions of spelling, malapropisms
  • not formatted to instructions in Required page (huge font size, spacing, margins, etc)
  • personal opinion phrases
  • disconnected opinions
  • run-on sentences
  • mostly waffle, padding

  • Grading rubric for research project in political science: Paper (CROW) | Briefings (CASOQ)
    Content, Audiovisual and Speaking ability are more heavily weighted than Organization.  Wide window recommended for table.
    Capstone 
    Speeches
    Content Audiovisual Speaking Organization Questions
    A- to A=
    Grades
    thoughtful, conceptual, beginning political science discipline:
  • clearly analytical comparisons
  • contrasting views and theories
  • arguments supported by data or quotations
  • analysis transcends an historical narrative
  • key points explained selectively

  •  
    AV enhances content:
  • text is clear on background
  • images relevant, visible
  • right # of slides
  • introduction lays out issues and plan.
  • slides for each thought.
  • logical order of slides.
  • Findings slide
  • summary slide of works cited
  • tables and quotes integrated
  • maps, if relevant
  • handouts, if needed
  • Engages audience in material:
  • eye contact with audience
  • open gestures
  • voice projected to back of room
  • language is conceptual
  • eloquent in places
  • Logical grammar
  • no disconnected opinions
  • presents -- does not "read out"
  • authoritative on subject
  • stimulates questions
  • audience pays rapt attention
  • Highly organized and punctual:
  • PPT and talk delivered punctually
  • sets up ahead
  • fits allotted time
  • PPT and talk synchronized
  • plenty of material in reserve
  • Engages question
  • responds well to questions

  • Answer is 
  • Direct
  • Relevant
  • Substantive
  • Succinct
  • Respectful
  • B- to B+
    Grades
    thoughtful, showing some analysis:
  • some analytical comparisons
  • some views and theories
  • arguments mostly supported by data or quotations
  • competent historical narrative
  • key points explained selectively
  • AV matches content, mostly:
  • text is clear on background
  • images relevant, visible
  • right # of slides
  • introduction lays out issues and plan.
  • slides for each thought.
  • fairly logical order of slides.
  • conclusions slide
  • summary slide of works cited
  • tables and quotes integrated
  • maps, if relevant
  • Engages audience in material, mostly:
  • eye contact with audience
  • open gestures
  • voice projected to back of room
  • language is conceptual
  • eloquent in places
  • Logical grammar
  • no disconnected opinions
  • presents -- does not "read out"
  • authoritative on subject
  • most of audience pays attention
  • Organized and punctual:
  • PPT and talk delivered punctually
  • sets up on time
  • fits allotted time, roughly
  • PPT & talk together
  • material in reserve
  • Engages question partly
  • responds well to questions

  • Answer is 
  • Direct, if not complete
  • Relevant enough
  • Substantive, if not full
  • Succinct enough
  • Respectful
  • C- to C+
    Grades
    Little or no analysis:
  • Mostly superficial, journalistic or 'doorstep' opinions
  • without academic data or support
  • argument does not really flow 
  • trite comments
  • rejecting evidence, maintains prejudice
  • AV missing some elements:
  • text is unclear on background
  • images irrelevant, invisible
  • wrong # of slides
  • introduction unengaged.
  • slides for each thought.
  • slides jumbled.
  • no conclusions slide
  • no summary slide of works cited
  • no tables or quotes
  • no maps
  • Engages audience in material:
  • poor eye contact with audience
  • distracting gestures
  • voice mumbled
  • poor grammar
  • disconnected opinions
  • "reads out"script
  • ignorant of subject
  • audience pays little attention
  • Disorganized and tardy:
  • PPT and talk delivered tardy
  • sets up late
  • does not fit allotted time
  • PPT and talk not synchronized
  • runs out of material
  • spaghetti talk, not logical
  • Does not really answer question
  • no questions were stimulated

  • Answer
  • rambles
  • lacks content
  • talks out time
  • misunderstands question
  • disrespectful
  • F to D+
    Grades
    Merely superficial, journalistic or doorstep opinions
  • short briefing
  • trite comments
  • rejecting evidence, maintains prejudice
  • nothing really original found
  • or, invalidated by plagiarism
  • AV lacks most elements
  • text too simplistic or confused
  • graphics are cheesy or childlike
  • or, invalidated by plagiarism
  • Does not engage audience:
  • little eye contact with audience
  • distracting gestures
  • mumbled
  • disconnected opinions
  • fails to present
  • ignorant of subject
  • audience pays no attention
  • Disorganized and tardy:
  • PPT and talk delivered tardy or never
  • sets up late
  • does not fit allotted time
  • PPT and talk not synchronized
  • runs out of material
  • "spaghetti talk", not logical
  • What questions?
    Or, did not respond